I am Mark Tippetts, Libertarian Candidate for Governor of Texas

Submitted by Mark4Gov t3_yf1c87 in IAmA

I am a Father of 6, grandfather to 7. International businessman, former Lago Vista City Council member, & the 2022 Libertarian Party candidate for Governor of Texas.

I was born in Mexico, I am bilingual and bicultural. I am a licensed and practicing attorney.

The “Tippetts Top 5” issues in Texas:

  1. School Choice - I want everyone to have access to a good and safe education.

  2. Immigration- I want to make it easier to come to America legally, and stop using people who just want to work as political pawns.

  3. Legalize marijuana- An overwhelming majority support it, but Republican politicians have blocked it

  4. Oppose mandates - Our rights and liberties do not go away, even in a crisis

  5. Cut taxes and spending, especially property taxes which hurt everyone but seniors the most

Proof: Here's my proof!

Thanks everyone for your participation and insightful questions. I hope I was able to answer them to your satisfaction. Feel free to reach out to me on Twitter, Facebook, carrier pigeon, Reddit, or however! 🙂

8

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

smitemight t1_iu14isv wrote

Would you agree that being pro-choice is the most libertarian attitude to have, avoiding big government in your partner’s pants?

20

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu1i4kl wrote

Yes, we like to say we are "pro-choice on everything." I definitely do not want big government in my partner's pants!

9

Prismine t1_iu1tzg3 wrote

But what is your plan to make is accessible again?? Are you going to be super vague in all your responses? The American people NEED ACCESS TO ABORTIONS

9

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu254h6 wrote

The Governor of Texas cannot grant access to something outlawed by a previous legislature. It would take the new legislature drafting a new bill to repeal past law. If that new bill respected the right to choose but did not force anyone to pay for others' medical decisions, I would sign it.

4

CorranHorn25 t1_iu2pu5c wrote

Spoken like a republican disguised a 3rd party. Whatajoke

7

GDJT t1_iu14fr4 wrote

I've always wanted to ask this: why bother running? You know you're going to lose. Don't you have something better to do with your time?

12

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu1d5jb wrote

I did a video answering this very question! https://youtu.be/oWdRNGk9xAA

But the gist of it is, someone has to represent the pro-liberty message. Many people have joined the two authoritarian parties and tried to make them less authoritarian, and they are free to try that, but it never seems to work. So, I'd rather fight for what I believe in and give the voters a choice of another party. I got the most votes of any LP Governor candidate in Texas history in 2018, and we are on pace to do better this time. If I get over 2%, then the Libertarian Party has the option of becoming a Primary party in Texas, which would increase interest and publicity for the party quite a bit. Hopefully, I can pass the torch to the future Libertarians who will keep that fire burning.

6

cowkong t1_iu17t3a wrote

Why are our individual rights above the health of the general public? How is wearing a mask and adhering to health precautions for your country any different than serving it any other way? Why put your own comfort over the lives of your fellow country people? That's not even to mention the stress and money wasted going to hospitalizing those inflicted who likely won't have the proper insurance coverage to pay those bills themselves? Why is the government regulation so scary when free roaming capitalism has created horrendous working conditions and a larger wealth dispairty than we've seen in our lifetimes? We need a government, just a better one. The last thing we need is more libertarians telling us to worry about ourselves and ourselves alone when no great society ever succeeded with that mentality.

12

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu1yf5y wrote

I agree we need a better government. One that does not lie to us and feed us false information filled with a political agenda. One that gives us good recommendations for the benefit of all.

−2

Striking-Screen-3619 t1_iu8ewhs wrote

Libertarians believe you have health freedom. We are fighting for your health freedom. Please don’t forget that. For example, heart disease remains the leading cause of death according to the CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm

The federal government closed gyms, parks, but kept fast food restaurants open during the pandemic while telling us that it’s ok to get bigger. Meanwhile, obesity is on of the leading risks for Covid.

Republicans and Democrats only want power. They just want you to remain vulnerable so they can keep you in control. They don’t care if you’re sick, as long as they are in control.

Libertarians truly just want you as an individual to thrive. We know you’re unique and have the ability to move past this authoritarian government. You have the power! Republicans and Democrats are afraid of your power! Libertarians recognize your power as an individual and will not take advantage of it. Libertarians want to get rid of the bureaucracy so you can live the life that you want.

−4

cowkong t1_iu9t0km wrote

I don't want individuals to thrive alone. I want the best for everyone. I'm willing to sacrifice personally for the betterment of everyone. If you can't stay healthy indoors, that's a personal choice decided by the individual, a notion that should be appreciated by libertarians. No one's forcing you to stuff your face with food and to not find new avenues for exercise during a time where information is readily available and often free. In fact, if libertarians had their way, highly addictive, obesity-causing food would be even more popular than it is currently. Libertarians want freedom of choice and addiction comes easy. Those options put freedom in front of everything and it comes at a cost for everyone within the society, regardless of how much you try to ignore it and focus on yourself. Power comes from your vote, that's the proper way to make the change you want to see. Putting individual freedoms over everything else is a great way to allow the selfish to live more carefree and create a society that only serves those with means. I want a more empathetic, caring government. Not one that puts me, myself, and I as the only thing I should care about. I want to help others if I have the means and I want more of that from our government.

5

skabople t1_iuaixw4 wrote

Libertarians are for free choice but only if it doesn't harm others around you. We take addiction very seriously and greatly encourage social programs preferably at a local level so the service can be as personalized as possible. Most Libertarians love localism. We want the people to give back and help each other and that stance includes the government. You should be able to help people for the betterment of humanity. Libertarians want to make sure that the government doesn't get in the way of doing that. Sadly this isn't always displayed by the community of Libertarians in their messaging but our elected officials show otherwise. Ed Tiddwell the mayor of Lago Vista, Texas is libertarian. In the five years that he's been mayor the population increases ~60%, sales tax up by ~66%, property taxes dropped 33%, and they've been able to add more to their community in terms of parks and other small benefits thanks to his guidance and his team. My town has a $7 a month charge for your water bill that covers any and all emergency transportation to and from the hospitals and I personally along with many others would like to see this expand into more medical coverage for my city that's voluntary and encourages competition among government and corporations alike. It's a perfect example of localism that Libertarians love. I'm sorry the empathy doesn't always come across but the Libertarian Party of Texas craves an empathetic and loving society.

1

cowkong t1_iubydud wrote

Hey, thanks! I really appreciate an in-depth explanation of what Libertarianism means to you and probably many. It doesn't surprise me that a movement can be distorted as it gains a following and that a very loud portion can only further create an image that doesn't truly represent its cause. I also appreciate the addition of a real-world example to take a look at. I'm always interested in learning more and you've done a great job encouraging me to do so

1

skabople t1_iuc1xam wrote

CrowdHealth and "Healthshare" companies are very good examples of what libertarians like myself would like to see expanded as well. Affordable quality healthcare from the corporate side of things as well. Localism isn't the end all be all we don't want to put our eggs in one basket. Checks and balances stuffs lol

2

Striking-Screen-3619 t1_iua65f3 wrote

The authoritarian government puts themselves first. They want power over you. They are selfish.

Your thread includes “I want,” which in your words is selfish. You are putting yourself first. Why should I cater to that? Why should your needs and desires supersede mine?

You seem to want more control over others, which is not empathetic or caring. You can’t control or legislate empathy and care.

Just like no one is forcing people to stuff their faces with food (good or bad) the government should not force me or others to put things in my body, including vaccines. If food is a personal choice, so are vaccines.

Just think about this, you want more government power and control? What happens when someone is elected that you don’t like and gets to have all that power you are championing? In other words, Trump can come back into office and wield all that power you wanted those in power to have (assuming you’re not a Trump supporter).

In other words, be careful what you wish for…

−1

cowkong t1_iua8lnm wrote

I love how you can translate "I want the best for everyone" and call that selfish. It's honestly a really shallow attempt at taking something out of context to try to discredit an argument that explicitly states the opposite. But you do you, man. Vaccines aren't a personal choice simply because you live around others and your defiance of health and safety standards puts others at risk. IE it's selfish and does a disservice to those around you. Now, if you lived alone, completely isolated from society, I would have no qualms with that choice. We don't allow for people to set their houses on fire because it has the potential to harm others and their property, not due to a lack of freedom and personal choice.

I don't want control over others, I want a society that wants to work together to be the best it can. I don't think it's healthy for a large, sophisticated, and extremely complicated network of people, businesses, and services to only care for themselves, especially at the expense of others.

But I understand the fears of a large entity that controls it all, it's obviously faltering in many key aspects. Doesn't mean we should destroy it and return to human's previous state of individualism and tribalism. We only achieve what we have as humans because our societies that continue to grow as we do culturally.

We can balance control/power with accountability and creating a system that keeps it in check. We currently have systems that try to do that, although, again, it's far from perfect and something that needs to be worked on, not completely abolished. I appreciate your arguments and assumptions about my politics and wish you the best. Cheers.

3

Striking-Screen-3619 t1_iuacgwv wrote

Nope, I translated your desire for more government controls as selfish.

Vaccines are a personal choice. They go into my body. My body, my choice, right?

You don’t want control over others, but you just told me what to do with my body. Again, my body, my choice.

I believe in the power and uniqueness of the individual. I see you for what you are, what you can offer, and your individual potential for what you can become. I don’t merely see you as a group. That’s what Libertarian mean when they celebrate you as an individual. I see you as more than the collective.

I also appreciate your feedback. I appreciate our freedom to provide our feedback too.

0

cowkong t1_iuadq38 wrote

I see society as a relationship that requires a certain give and take. To make sacrifices for it and those within it and gain the advantage and services it provides.

I think we can easily agree on that something needs to be fixed currently and we want change. Just completely different views. I would absolutely love to be proved wrong if it created a better life for all, in which I'd gladly embrace whatever shape it took. Again, have a good day, it's been an enriching discussion.

3

Prismine t1_iu17cry wrote

What is on your agenda to make abortion legal and accessible for childbearing folks again?

11

[deleted] t1_iu2v9ae wrote

[removed]

−4

Prismine t1_iu2ysuy wrote

Trans men give birth. To deny trans men as men is transphobic. Do you mean to be transphobic with this response?

5

ocktick t1_iu3trwq wrote

I just think it’s dumb that we’re deleting the concept of women to account for the case of a “man giving birth”

2

NoFunHere t1_iu17q5v wrote

Can you please explain your ideal funding model for public schools?

11

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu24pil wrote

Under school choice, public schools should be treated like any other school and must compete for funding that follows the student.

1

NoFunHere t1_iu25tu6 wrote

That isn't an answer to my question. Where does the funding that follows the student come from?

11

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu5kmnr wrote

Until we have tax reform on the issue, the funding will come from the same place and manner as it currently does.

0

skabople t1_iu2ioyt wrote

Where it already comes from. Taxes.

It sounds like he wants to fix the issue (one issue anyhow) of the "rich" area of town having nicer schools compared to the others by allowing the money allocated per student to follow the student and allowing kids the option of not being stuck in their respective "zone". Plenty of people already do this by enrolling their kids in schools not a part of their district which had it's own complications and issues. Homeschooling as well could be an example of this but it's much cheaper then private school with the same benefits assuming a parent can put forth the effort.

Arizona has implemented their own version of school choice I think as well.

−1

NoFunHere t1_iu2vbaa wrote

Not sure if you are speaking on his behalf or not, but there is a reason he dodged the question.

12

skabople t1_iu37f0w wrote

I personally worked with him on this AMA and others as a volunteer for his campaign but I do not want to put words in his mouth. I'll ask him if he can provide further details to your question as well as others on the thread. These AMAs are a lot of work surprisingly so some of these remarks are a little short. Feel free to send Mark a private message as well in Reddit or Twitter.

−1

CritFin t1_iu38wig wrote

No need of any funding to public schools as they take vouchers from students.

−1

popesnutsack t1_iu17voh wrote

Are you my long lost drunk republican uncle?

10

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu1hzev wrote

I am not, but if I win the election, everyone's invited for margaritas on the beach in Mexico! 😁

8

popesnutsack t1_iu1lagr wrote

If Raphael 'zodiac killer' Cancun Cruz is going, count me out!

5

Godloseslaw t1_iu1b9jq wrote

Did you hear about the libertarian who won an an election?

Neither did I!

Seriously though. What do you think should the role of government be? Shouldn't kids be taught about slavery? Shouldn't women be able to make their own choices regardless of what some old man thinks?

How do we get religion out of government as the founders intended? Why shouldn't churches be taxed if legitimate businesses are?

Thanks.

8

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu1y8l4 wrote

The role of government should only be there to defend from foreign invasion and intervene when one person violates the rights of another.
Our past history regardless of how ugly it was should be taught to all of our kids. Lest we forget the horrors and atrocities of our past.

Absolutely! Old men should not be legislating morality for women.

The 1st amendment clearly states that “congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Taxing it would be prohibiting free exercise.

8

CritFin t1_iu2xzjt wrote

Why not tax religions while a common man pays taxes on everything including his housing, the constitution also specifies that common man has all the liberty but still he is taxed? Religions do use roads, sewarage etc why should other taxpayers fund it for them?

3

ArmyTrainingSir t1_iu1fefd wrote

> School Choice

So you want to use taxpayer funds to fund religious schools?

7

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu1yqj7 wrote

If a parent wishes to send their children to a religious school the funding allocated for that student should follow the student.

1

CleanAirIsMyFetish t1_iu28ogu wrote

This is a gross oversimplification of how funding works. Schools require a huge amount of overhead and the idea that their funding can ebb and flow at the whims of wherever students parents want to drag them each year is unsustainable. Imagine having to fire or hire large numbers of staff each year because it’s not in the budget now or you don’t have enough teachers to students? Now add that to the already growing problem of teacher burnout and shortages.

8

CouldNotCareLess318 t1_iu2n1rc wrote

> Imagine having to fire or hire large numbers of staff each year because it’s not in the budget now or you don’t have enough teachers to students?

Wouldn't this create competition in educator roles? That seems like it'd be a good thing, no? Everyone would have to compete for the business, just like most other businesses

0

CleanAirIsMyFetish t1_iu2sncn wrote

Children’s education isn’t something you want to mess around with like that. It’s not something you can just shrug your shoulders and say “oh well, maybe next year”

6

Striking-Screen-3619 t1_iu9344m wrote

Thank you for your feedback on this topic. Competition in the end would benefit students, teachers, and the school administration because they would need to perform at a certain level in order to continue to receive the funding. Think about for profit companies and their models. I understand that it’s vastly different than the current public education tax-payer funded system. But, our kids need something vastly different because they are currently left behind when taxes increase because the money goes to the government bureaucrats rather than the students. The money in a for profit charter school would be appropriately allocated because it would require more transparency.

0

CleanAirIsMyFetish t1_iu9g2tp wrote

I agree that our kids are being left behind and that the current system isn’t working but it’s not because there isn’t competition. It’s because schools are being defunded, teachers are under paid, there aren’t enough teachers and they don’t have the resources they need. Competition won’t help that, it will make the system worse because as we have seen in every sector of our economy, capitalism serves those at the top, not those at the bottom.

3

Striking-Screen-3619 t1_iu9p5h7 wrote

Who would be at the bottom if charter schools that are privately funded continue to succeed and multiply?

1

Striking-Screen-3619 t1_iu9po1a wrote

Schools are being defunded and teachers are being underpaid because of government bureaucracy, which has no checks and balances. Those in power take from the little guy and don’t perform, leaving the kids as the ultimate victim. They are never held accountable. Shareholders would hold charter schools accountable for performance. Yes, they would want to see a profit due to the ultimate result of the children’s success. The outcome is the kids’ success. I’m not seeing a negative here.

0

CleanAirIsMyFetish t1_iua6ajz wrote

Shareholders don’t care how the school performs or how well the students do. They only care about turning a profit with as little effort and investment as possible.

3

Striking-Screen-3619 t1_iuablhi wrote

Charter schools, including for profit, are held accountable by governing boards, local school districts, and the state. How do you know the governing boards don’t care about the students? How do you know? I know for a fact that government elites only care about how many tax dollars they can personally gain rather than student outcomes.

2

Striking-Screen-3619 t1_iu8dq3w wrote

Some chatter schools operate on a for profit model. They are responsible for reporting results similar to other for profit companies. In other words, students are expected to achieve and most do. Teachers are expected to achieve, administrators are expected to achieve because it’s all tied to the bottom line. You can imagine how much the Department of Education is threatened by this model though because it shows that a school can achieve results while making a profit.

0

CleanAirIsMyFetish t1_iu8ft25 wrote

That’s not scalable though and there will undoubtedly be huge swaths of the county that will be left in the dust because they’re poor. If the students can’t pay for the education who does? The DoE? Now we’re back where we started

1

Striking-Screen-3619 t1_iu8i00d wrote

Regarding the Department of Education, yes, they are threatened by these schools that currently exist. However, we should work to encourage more business owners to establish charter schools because they have proven to be successful. We can’t let government bureaucracy stand in the way of children’s education. Libertarian’s are ready for this. On the federal level the past two presidential candidates wanted to abolish the department of education.

1

Striking-Screen-3619 t1_iu8hp2y wrote

If the charter school is in their district they are not left out. Charter schools are free,. How is it not scalable if they meet the Department of Education standards?

0

ArmyTrainingSir t1_iu5at2j wrote

So of course you will have no problem if parents want to send their children to a "Jesus Loves Allah School for Socialists Loving Satan"?

3

obi-jawn-kenobi t1_iu18j3q wrote

Please excuse my cynicism and suspicions of other libertarians.

Third party candidates don't run unless they feel intensely about attention needed to certain issues or feel intensely anti-other cadidates. That being said:

  1. What are your strongest, harshest critiques of your main opponents Gov. Abbott and Beto O'Rourke and why did those critiques push you to run?

  2. What is your biggest critique of libertarianism and how does your candidacy build from that weakness?

  3. What is your biggest critique of yourself and how can you as a public servant balance and build from that?

6

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu209pu wrote

I am running to give power back to the people, not because of critiques of any particular candidates. https://youtu.be/oWdRNGk9xAA

I am not worthy but as my father would say, “I will do the job until a worthy man comes.”

1

robertgunt t1_iu1731f wrote

Where will the funding for good and safe education come from if taxes are cut? Which services will be receive less funding?

5

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu1z5m3 wrote

Unless there is a Texas constitutional amendment, the state is mandated to fund education, therefore taxes for education would not be cut. There are many areas in which we can cut spending and taxes and one of them is to stop giving corporate welfare in the number of millions of dollars to large corporations.

5

BostonDrivingIsWorse t1_iu1h2pe wrote

How would you solve the problem of bears?

https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/libertarian-utopia-ruined-by-bears-no-seriously-27ad1bc44f62

4

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu22yj6 wrote

Fortunately I am running for governor of Texas and we don’t have a problem with bears.

0

BostonDrivingIsWorse t1_iu23dbv wrote

Way to dodge the question, Mark.

The issue wasn’t bears, it was the cities inability to solve its trash issues, which attracted bears. I was hoping you’d be able to extrapolate that.

I am disappointed.

1

pmitchell361 t1_iu5ird1 wrote

Trash is a city and county issue that the state government doesn’t have say in, therefor this isn’t something that someone who is running for governor can deal with.

−4

obi-jawn-kenobi t1_iu17xs2 wrote

What is your stance on Texas's "permitless" carry laws and the increase in impulse-driven shootings? Are those lives just an unfortunate but unavoidable cost of freedom or did political blurring of the term "well regulated" cross any lines to "unregulated" or reckless, greedy, negligence?

3

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu20r4f wrote

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

I agree there are a lot of reckless, greedy, and negligent people, however, your right to bear arms to defend yourself against those individuals “shall not be infringed”.

0

kyledreamboat t1_iu1ab0w wrote

HOW MANY POUNDS OF WEED CAN WE BUY PER DAY? ALSO HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST ME TO GET TO WORK IF ROADS ARE PRIVATE? ALSO IS THE DENNY'S COLORING MAP REALLY THAT FUN FOR LIBERTARIANS?

2

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu20er9 wrote

AS MANY POUNDS AS YOU CAN AFFORD! NO WEED SUBSIDIES FROM THE GOVERNMENT!

HOW FAR DO YOU LIVE FROM WORK?

MY LIBERTARIAN CHILDREN HAVE FOUND IT TO BE VERY FUN!

3

WiChiveTa t1_iu22ccu wrote

Love the response here. Matching OC’s energy lol.

2

RealPatriotFranklin t1_iu1bdcz wrote

What are your thoughts on Driver's Licences?

2

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu22tcm wrote

I would like to believe the person coming at me at 90 mph knows how to drive. In comparison, as a private pilot, it is important for me to know that all pilots know what we are doing. It’s a good way for the government to ensure others don’t infringe on each other's rights.

2

PerineumFalc0n t1_iu1ltrk wrote

Given the atrocious laws Abbott has signed restricting voter access, women's rights, and his xenophobic policies towards immigrants - all in the context of a GOP biased Supreme Court - would you be willing to endorse Beto for the good of democracy and personal rights?

A moral victory with more resulting republican fascism in Texas is not a good outcome. Perhaps your endorsement would lend influence for Beto to back off from his bad gun policies.

2

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu235mc wrote

The real question is would Beto be willing to endorse me for the freedom and liberty of Texans?

2

PerineumFalc0n t1_iu2gj5f wrote

I guess the reality of Abbott winning is something you find acceptable

2

pmitchell361 t1_iu5iy8a wrote

How could we ever trust Beto to back off of guns when that’s been one of his top issues for years?

0

PerineumFalc0n t1_iu5k3id wrote

How can you tolerate fascists growing power year over year?

It isn't a good outcome with Abbott winning. Beto can be reasoned with. Abbott is actively stripping away rights.

1

Due_Independent5005 t1_iu5ltf3 wrote

Define fascism

0

PerineumFalc0n t1_iu5m5td wrote

There are several aspects of it. Restriction of rights, xenophobia, crishing dissent, reduction of democracy, militarism, bigotry.

Basically the entire gop playbook.

2

pmitchell361 t1_iu68v7y wrote

And Beto wouldn’t be trying to take any of our rights, he’s said several times he wants to take away our gun rights, and democrats nowadays seem eager to censure our speech. Beto is no better than Abbott. That’s why my vote is going to Mark Tippetts, he’s the only who won’t be trying to take away any of our freedoms.

−2

PerineumFalc0n t1_iu698fy wrote

Beto's hypothetical removal of rights is a lot less threatening than Abbott's actual removal of rights.

Downvoting me for outlining the fascism that republicans are committing leads me to believe that you're cool with it.

Tippetts will of course lose. You're saying you're fine with the Abbott outcome.

2

pmitchell361 t1_iu6b72a wrote

No, I downvoted you cause you’re trying to make excuses for Beto’s fascism and authoritarianism. He’s no better than Abbott and neither will ever have my support.

−2

PerineumFalc0n t1_iu6bq2i wrote

I've been a loyal libertarian activist, donor, and voter for over a decade.

Beto isn't a fascist. The republican biased SCOTUS backing up actual fascists like Abbott is the biggest threat to your liberty. And you're cool with letting it happen.

Moral victories count for nothing when the night of long knives comes to America.

3

skabople t1_iualhiv wrote

Thank you for your loyalty and I hope that means we get your vote. You are so right Abbott is a huge threat to Texas and sure Beto is a better option but by a small margin imo. Your vote for libertarians means we could also be a viable option in the future or even now but without the continued support we will never win. I hope your loyalty stays true by helping more libertarians win.

0

PerineumFalc0n t1_iuamacm wrote

I'm never supporting the LP again as long as the party is led by the mises caucus.

1

skabople t1_iuao0te wrote

I am not the MC and they may run the national party but Texas is doing great. Don't let them get to you but I understand. Have a good day and thanks for showing up to the AMA. DM me if you want to share any complaints on LPTexas or have any wants for the Texas party to do more of etc. Any insight will help me take LPTexas to the next level.

1

Aintaword t1_iu1tr8i wrote

Libertarians typically support "open borders". Every nation has a sovereign right to control its borders. What is your plan to handle the Texas border at the state level?

2

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu23osv wrote

You are correct every nation has a right to sovereign territory and it is the federal government’s duty and obligation to pass comprehensive immigration reform and secure our borders.

3

CritFin t1_iu2yc7d wrote

How can you ensure that people with criminal background fleeing their police into the USA get their entry denied?

0

TYPICALFELLOW t1_iu1x77j wrote

Have you heard of Robin Koerner? Do you take advantage of any of his strategies?

2

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu25wx3 wrote

Thanks everyone for your participation and insightful questions! I hope I was able to answer them to your satisfaction. Feel free to reach out to me on Twitter, Facebook, carrier pigeon, Reddit, or however! 🙂

2

annang t1_iu3g7mt wrote

Will you disavow the vile and racist comments made by the LP’s Mises Caucus and other related factions, right here, right now?

2

obi-jawn-kenobi t1_iu1770j wrote

As a former libertarian, would you consider yourself a left-wing person who does not want to associate with Democrats or a right wing person who doesn't want to associate with Republicans?

1

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu20i72 wrote

As a libertarian who truly understands libertarianism, I am a libertarian.

4

AttentionRoyal2276 t1_iu1yuzj wrote

I see nothing about your stance on abortion. Why is it that 90% of "Libertarians" I talk to are anti choice? Don't you find it incredibly hypocritical for a party to claim to oppose mandates but not allow women to make their own medical decisions?

1

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu21jj4 wrote

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, I believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

4

IAmAModBot t1_iu25ure wrote

For more AMAs on this topic, subscribe to r/IAmA_Politics, and check out our other topic-specific AMA subreddits here.

1

PeanutSalsa t1_iu1osrj wrote

Why do you think the Libertarian Party isn't as popular among Americans as the two main parties are?

0

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu23x25 wrote

The Democratic and Republican primaries are funded by taxpayer money and third-party filing fees. They are also supported by the corporate media who only trumpets the candidates who buy ads on their stations.

5

jessegun87 t1_iu1prhp wrote

JMO, the majority of the population is simply uneducated. A free thinking, well educated individual understands the importance of a coexisting society.

−1

WiChiveTa t1_iu23g3c wrote

This is true. To go a step further, because Libertarians always miss the threshold to participate in debates, many people don’t understand what the Libertarian party stands for.

It’s a shame that this platform isn’t being pushed more and that people can’t listen to a third or fourth opinion. I’ll never understand why PACs, especially those funded by self described Libertarians, such as the Kochs (Charles is the only politically active brother after the passing of David) choose to fund Republicans rather than candidates whose platform they alleged to believe in.

1

jessegun87 t1_iu1p5mg wrote

Hey Mark, glad to see you on the ballot. How do you feel about digital assets?

0

[deleted] t1_iu1tk1s wrote

[deleted]

0

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu20z73 wrote

I've answered way more than two, perhaps your internet is slow! ;)

2

Winterclaw42 t1_iu203vw wrote

So...

Why should we legalize a drug that is linked to both increased ER usage and psychosis when the only reason provided is the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity? The US is a republic specifically because the majority of people could be wrong at times and representatives are supposed to serve as a check and balance in those instances?

I mean by your reasoning if a majority of the population want full on communism or to start nuclear winter we should do so. How dare those republicans stop full communism! How dare those trump republicans with all their peace talks not start nuclear winter!

/satire

Also, I thought libertarians are supposed to support freedom and being able to make decisions for yourself. Addiction is a form of slavery, so becoming addicted to drugs limits ones freedom. Also while on drugs, they can inhibit your ability to properly think and make decisions. They can deleterious to self-determination and discipline. All of these things sound like they should be against libertarian ideals. Being high does not facilitate the rational decision making that underpins the libertarian foundation.

Finally the elephant in the room: in books like 1984 and brave new world, the people in power are all to willing to use people's base desires against them in order to control them. Legal drugs could be used as a method to control the masses by a totalitarian regime. Get high and let the government do all the thinking for you.

Frankly, why should anyone take a party who has a key platform of "420" seriously?

Why should anyone view a party that's trying to corrupt a democracy by giving the people, and the democracy itself, tools of their own self-destruction with anything other than pure disdain?

0

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu22gh5 wrote

I never advocate for the use or abuse of any substance or alcohol, however as an individual I do not surrender my autonomy or free agency to any government to dictate to me what I can or cannot consume.

3

CouldNotCareLess318 t1_iu2ojxe wrote

>The US is a republic specifically because the majority of people could be wrong at times and representatives are supposed to serve as a check and balance in those instances

And then:

>and the democracy itself

Made me laugh so hard. Good post.

1

Striking-Screen-3619 t1_iu8hi0q wrote

If heroine became legal tomorrow would you take it? Would you go to someone, buy it, consume it, and get high? It doesn’t sound like you would.

You might say that others would. But, who are these other people? Do you personally know them? Who are they? Are they patiently waiting for heroine to be legal to take it? Are they hoping that libertarians will get elected so they can legally get high on heroine? Concaine? Meth? I’d love to hear about this. The only thing I hear is a third-person effect that someone else will do this illegal activity that we have to protect with this government law, but I don’t need this protection.

Overall, I’m sure there are people who are on illegal drugs in TX at this very moment. I’m sure before they light up they don’t think, “hmm, this is illegal I better not…” yeah right.

Illegal drugs bring crime into the state, and minors run drugs for street gangs. One positive side effect of legalizing drugs is we could potentially put them out of business.

Libertarians have thought this through. We don’t just want to get high. We see people suffering on the streets. I see them downtown, it’s heartbreaking. We don’t want things to continue the way they have because vulnerable populations are being taken advantage of.

The War on Drugs started in the 70s and has cost more than $1 trillion. It has barely made a dent in its pledge to reduce illegal drug trade in the US.

It’s time to change things.

1

IFTTTexas t1_iu2jte6 wrote

On school choice, if the money follows the student, does that include homeschooling?

0

Mark4Gov OP t1_iu32ied wrote

If homeschooled, the money would follow the student in the form of a tax credit or direct payment to the parents.

1

IFTTTexas t1_iu3xp6d wrote

I agree. Homeschooling may be cheaper in some folks mind, but the parents are paying out of pocket, pulling one parent out of the work force, and still paying taxes for public school.

0

CritFin t1_iu2y70k wrote

Should the convicted criminals who are jailed for violation of non aggression principle be fined enough money to fund their jail stay? Or should other taxpayers pay for the expenses of their jail stay?

0